DOCSLIB.ORG

Bigboxretail.Aspx)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bigboxretail.Aspx) Agenda Item GB-3 City of Tacoma Community and Economic Development Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donna Stenger, Manager, Long-Range Planning Division SUBJECT: Large Scale Retail Moratorium DATE: September 28, 2011 At the October 5 meeting the Commission will be conducting its public hearing on the emergency moratorium on large scale retail establishments. Following the hearing, staff will be discussing with the Commission the key issues raised in public testimony received to date. The Commission’s findings and recommendations, which will be drafted for consideration at the October 19 meeting, need to address, at a minimum, the need for and appropriate duration of the moratorium. In support of that discussion, staff is providing a copy of a memorandum provided to the City Council on September 22 regarding the moratorium’s potential impact on certain projects. Additionally, the Commission will continue its review of the City’s existing policies and regulations applicable to large scale retail uses. Attached for your review are: • Comprehensive Plan Guidance – A summary of existing plan policies relative to large commercial development and development within commercial and mixed-use areas • A few articles and papers regarding large scale retail development, from the State’s Municipal Research and Services Center (additional information and resources are available at the MRSC website – www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Planning/BigBoxRetail.aspx). At the meeting staff will also be providing additional information about current development and design standards, including how they have applied to recent developments within the commercial and mixed-use districts where these types of uses are permitted and generally located. If you have any questions, please contact Brian Boudet at 573-2389 or [email protected]. Attachments c: Peter Huffman, Assistant Director 747 Market Street, Room 1036 ▌ Tacoma, Washington 98402-3793 ▌ (253) 591-5365 http://www.cityoftacoma.org/planning LARGE SCALE RETAIL MORATORIUM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCE October 5, 2011 The following is a sampling of policies and goals from the Comprehensive Plan specifically related to large commercial retail development, including policies from the Generalized Land Use Element (LU) related to the districts and areas in which those types of uses are commonly found. It should be noted that this is only intended to provide a representation of the key policy messages related to this type of development and the areas where it is generally allowed. More detailed information and additional policies can be found throughout the sections indicated, as well as in other elements of the Plan. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (PAGES LU‐54 – LU‐60) General Themes: • Human‐scale, pedestrian access, non‐motorized circulation • Public squares and assembly points for community activities • Distinctive place based on the combination of history, natural environment, and people • Range in scale from small neighborhood convenience shops to regional shopping centers Specific Policies and Goals: Commercial Development – Goal (LU‐54) To achieve an attractive, convenient and well‐balanced system of commercial facilities, which serve the needs of the citizens, are appropriate to their relative service areas and are compatible with adjacent land use. Location and Accessibility – Intent (LU‐54) Commercial development involves a wide variety of uses and can range in scale from small neighborhood convenience shops to regional shopping centers. Commercial areas are the activity centers of the community. Commercial areas should be safe, well designed, appropriately scaled, and integrated into the fabric of the community. Commercial establishments must be properly located and easily accessible for the convenience of their customers. Commercial developments should be located within mixed‐use centers, in concentrations within areas of similar character, or in nodes at intersections of major traffic corridors. Such locations should lessen traffic congestion, increase consumer convenience, reduce utilities and services installation and maintenance costs and encourages joint use of parking facilities. Infill development and intensification of existing commercial areas will aid their continued economic viability. In some limited instances, physical expansion of existing areas may be permitted; however, linear expansion is to be strictly limited. Commercial development within the mixed‐use centers is also guided by policies in Section II specifically addressing the centers. For development within the centers, where center policies are inconsistent with the policies below, center policies take precedence. Design – Intent (LU‐55) The viability of the city's commercial areas is strengthened by promoting quality design and compatibility with the existing and/or desired character of the area. Their viability is further insured by encouraging compact development, the physical maintenance and rehabilitation of existing commercial developments, and beautification efforts. Design that promotes pedestrian access is a high priority. This can be accomplished by encouraging developments to orient towards the street, and providing attractive pedestrian access between buildings and the street, between separate buildings on the site, through large parking lots, and to surrounding uses, where desirable. Attractive façades, landscaping, lighting, and other amenities are also important to enhancing the pedestrian environment. Well‐designed vehicular access and parking is needed to ensure the long term health of commercial uses. Such features shall be designed to provide user convenience while minimizing conflicts with bicyclists, transit users, and pedestrians, and minimizing impacts to the visual environment. Landscaping elements along the edge of the parking lots and within larger parking lots are needed to achieve this goal. Shared use of parking areas is strongly encouraged to encourage compact, efficient commercial centers. It is intended that the image and appearance along freeway corridors and limited access highways be improved and enhanced by achieving high quality freeway‐oriented development and preserving visual interest. Balance needs to be maintained between preserving visual interests with development economics. Design standards will be used to help ensure that new commercial developments meet these objectives. Such standards will be easy to use and help to encourage desired forms of development. Design standards may be supplemented with design guidelines for special areas and/or situations. Design guidelines will provide greater flexibility and detail in how commercial developments can meet design objectives. MEDIUM INTENSITY COMMERCIAL AREAS (PAGES LU‐58 – LU‐59) General Themes: • May contain a mix of retail, office, commercial, multi‐family, and light industrial uses • Includes both concentrated areas of large commercial development with community‐wide significance and older, smaller‐scale districts that focus more on services for surrounding neighborhoods • Encourage locations near residential areas and the development of residential uses within these traditionally commercial districts • Should be located along significant transportation corridors, such as major arterials and freeways, and be designed to include multi‐modal connections Large Scale Retail Moratorium Comprehensive Plan Guidance 2 • Vegetative buffers and other forms of screening are used to prevent negative impacts to surrounding residential areas Specific Policies and Goals: Medium Intensity – Intent (LU‐58) Medium intensity commercial developments supply everyday goods and services for several surrounding neighborhoods and are of community‐wide significance. New commercial development should be directed primarily toward mixed‐use centers which consist of a clustered grouping of stores and businesses with multi‐modal transportation access. This arrangement encourages multi‐purpose trips and increases customer convenience. Planned business parks are a relatively new type of concentrated commercial development. Because of their relatively nuisance‐free nature, planned business parks may be compatible with adjacent lower intensity residential areas provided the character of the area is maintained. Older commercial development is usually found in small‐scale linear districts. These districts generally consist of a continuous row of commercial establishments along key arterial streets, which were historically used as principal entry routes to the downtown business area. This type of commercial development does not have the drawing power of a major retail store, but provides convenience and services to surrounding neighborhoods. Parking is provided on street and in small lots, generally located behind or to the side of the commercial building. Upper stories were often used for housing in the past and such use is desirable for the future. Medium intensity commercial developments require access to higher volume arterial streets that are capable of carrying the traffic that is generated by these developments. These developments should be located within easy access to the residential communities that they serve. Methods to minimize adverse effects on adjacent, less intensive land uses and transportation levels of service are needed. This can be accomplished by encouraging shared parking arrangements, providing buffers, using design standards and encouraging public transit use. Medium Intensity Commercial Development – Policies (LU‐59) LU‐CDMI‐1 Concentrated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Make Caldor Your 10Y Store!
    20 - EVENING HERALD. Fri.. Nov. 16,197» Experts Say Solar Power Is Efficient HARTFORD (UPI) - Putting the sun to work is an ef­ The] ubllc has been very receptive to the idea of aolar should expect a return in about five to 10 years. ficient and economically feasible way to tackle the power but needs to learn more of the facts, Ms. Friedland "The real issue is out of pocket expenses. In a very current energy crisis, specialists told a solar power said. short period of time it’s costing you less and less every workshop for the financial community Thursday. "I think the whole issue of ‘heating or eathig' in this month to pay your beat,” Hollander said. Luggage Consultants with a federally funded solar research and part of the country will raise the consciousness about solar,” she said. information group also said the long-term advantages of LooMm to r e AMT The Nr Tari solar power will far outweigh the initial investment as A hot water heating system is the moat practical and learryai the cost of fuel increases. economical solar system an average family can install in DENTIST? ■Mi iM), MMMe, I “Solar power is a pretty simple technology. It’s func­ an existing home, Hollander said. The type of system Try ut for the poraonal touohl SamnL tional now. It works now. And it la economically depends on the location and construction of &e home, and Our modern office Is conveniently located In East rinl Fw feasible,” said Gayle Friedland, a financial analyst for and W to 120 gallon Unk can cost from $1,000 to $4 000.
    [Show full text]
  • Department Stores on Sale: an Antitrust Quandary Mark D
    Georgia State University Law Review Volume 26 Article 1 Issue 2 Winter 2009 March 2012 Department Stores on Sale: An Antitrust Quandary Mark D. Bauer Follow this and additional works at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mark D. Bauer, Department Stores on Sale: An Antitrust Quandary, 26 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. (2012). Available at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol26/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at Reading Room. It has been accepted for inclusion in Georgia State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Reading Room. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bauer: Department Stores on Sale: An Antitrust Quandary DEPARTMENT STORES ON SALE: AN ANTITRUST QUANDARY Mark D. BauerBauer*• INTRODUCTION Department stores occupy a unique role in American society. With memories of trips to see Santa Claus, Christmas window displays, holiday parades or Fourth of July fIreworks,fireworks, department stores­stores- particularly the old downtown stores-are often more likely to courthouse.' engender civic pride than a city hall building or a courthouse. I Department store companies have traditionally been among the strongest contributors to local civic charities, such as museums or symphonies. In many towns, the department store is the primary downtown activity generator and an important focus of urban renewal plans. The closing of a department store is generally considered a devastating blow to a downtown, or even to a suburban shopping mall. Many people feel connected to and vested in their hometown department store.
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Accommodation, the Establishment Clause, and Third-Party Harm Mark Storslee†
    Religious Accommodation, the Establishment Clause, and Third-Party Harm Mark Storslee† In the wake of Burwell v Hobby Lobby, religious accommodation has become increasingly controversial. That controversy has given rise to a new legal theory gaining popularity among academics and possibly a few Supreme Court justices: the idea that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause condemns accommoda- tions whenever they generate anything beyond a minimal cost for third parties. The third-party thesis is appealing. But this Article argues that there are good reasons to believe it fails as an interpretation of the Establishment Clause. In its place, the Article offers a new theory for understanding the relationship between costly accommodations and the Establishment Clause. That theory begins with a simple assertion: the Establishment Clause is not a prohibition on generic harm but instead a ban on government attempts to promote a favored religious identity. Thus, the fundamental inquiry is not whether a private party bears some cost but instead whether the government is using its power to foster religious conformity. Although largely overlooked in the literature, members of the Founding generation actually did equate accommodations with establishments on at least two occasions, both involving instances in which accommodations encouraged reli- gious conformity. And as it turns out, the principles drawn from those incidents provide powerful explanations for many of the Court’s modern precedents—often more powerful than the Court’s own reasoning. But even more, viewing the Establishment Clause as a ban on government attempts to induce religious con- formity also offers a more plausible way of thinking about the occasional costs of accommodation.
    [Show full text]
  • May 2016 | Share This on 1
    May 2016 | Share this on 1 Why The Fundamentals Are No Longer Good Enough One-Trick Ponies, Groupon Effect, Experience Optimization, and Customer Advocacy Behavior Michael Lowenstein, Thought Leadership Principal, Beyond Philosophy May 2016 | Share this on 2 The Challenge of Being a One-Trick Pony About thirty years ago, Paul Simon wrote a song entitled “One-Trick Pony”. The song describes a performing pony that has learned only one trick, and he succeeds or fails with the audience based on how well he executes it. As Simon conveys in the lyrics: “He’s got one trick to last a lifetime. It’s the principal source of his revenue.” This song, and its message, are something of a metaphor for what challenges many companies endeavoring to create customer advocacy behavior and relationships, leading to more frequent purchase activity, through customer experience and loyalty programs. A key reason companies have a difficult time achieving optimum customer loyalty is that the fail to provide full value fundamentals. They focus on satisfying customers exclusively through basic rational and functional benefits, which is often too benign and passive an approach to create strategic perceived value. Mostly, they emphasize single element or minimal element tactical approaches with customers, such as pricing, merchandise, loyalty cards, or points-based programs, without determining (either before programs are launched or after they are up and running) whether this is sufficient motivation for building a long-term relationship. Smart marketers know that, for instance, being a low-cost provider can be a trap and that only overall perceived value will prevail.
    [Show full text]
  • Ames Department Stores, Inc., Bradlees, Inc., Caldor Corp., Homeplace of America, Inc., and Stuarts Department Stores, Inc
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION November 7, 2007 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3-12887 In the Matter of Ames Department Stores, Inc., ORDER INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS Bradlees, Inc., AND NOTICE OF HEARING PURSUANT Caldor Corp., TO SECTION 12(j) OF THE SECURITIES Homeplace of America, Inc., and EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Stuarts Department Stores, Inc., Respondents. I. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it necessary and appropriate for the protection of investors that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against Ames Department Stores, Inc., Bradlees, Inc., Caldor Corp., Homeplace of America, Inc., and Stuarts Department Stores, Inc. (“Respondents”). II. After an investigation, the Division of Enforcement alleges that: A. RESPONDENTS 1. Ames Department Stores, Inc. (“Ames”) (CIK No. 006071) is a forfeited Delaware corporation located in Rocky Hill, Connecticut with a class of equity securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g). Ames is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended May 4, 2002, which reported a net loss of over $43 million for the prior thirteen weeks. On August 20, 2001, Ames filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, and the case is still pending. As of November 5, 2007, the company’s common stock (symbol “AMESQ”) was quoted on the Pink Sheets, had six market makers, and was eligible for the piggyback exemption of Exchange Act Rule 15c2- 11(f)(3).
    [Show full text]
  • January - December 1989
    January - December 1989 A A.P. Construction Abortion. SEE ALSO PRO- A & I Carpentry & Remodeling A.P. Construction receives three CHOICE MOVEMENT; PRO- New Business Names, BJ assignments, BJ 6/19/89 p9 LIFE MOVEMENT 9/18/89 p20 A1 Greenwich Fireworks Denominational stances on A & K Services New Business Names, BJ abortion vary: Faith often New Business Names, BJ 5/8/89 12/4/89 p24 takes the middle ground, H p20 Aabco Custom Drywall 9/2/89 p20 A & M Inc. New Business Names, BJ Protesters violate others' rights A&M Inc. receives five awards 5/29/89 p20 [letter], H 11/8/89 p11 from machine tool industry Aabco Locksmith Abortion-Norwalk group, BJ 7/24/89 p15 New Business Names, BJ Medical Center to press charges Ad awards, H 9/5/89 p14 5/29/89 p20 against protesters, H 11/1/89 Focus on Marketing, H 2/11/89 Aaron's Tickets p4 p14 New Business Names, BJ Abraham, Rabbi Michael L. A and J Styling 2/20/89 p20 A change in leadership after 20 New Business Names, BJ AARP years: At Temple Shalom 9/18/89 p20 AARP honors Gilmore, H 6/8/89 [photo], H 2/4/89 p18+ A Touch of Class p16 Denominational stances on New Business Names, BJ Aasen, Lawrence abortion vary: Faith often 8/28/89 p20 Candidates profiled in Districts 3 takes the middle ground, H A Touch of Elegance Deco and 5, H 11/2/89 p13+ 9/2/89 p20 New Business Names, BJ AAUW-Norwalk/Westport Passover reminds Jews that 6/12/89 p24 Chapter freedom is a privilege that A&M Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Shopping Centers and Central Business Districts Suffolk County, New York
    Shopping Centers and Central Business Districts Suffolk County, New York July 2001 Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County # New York Shopping Centers and Central Business Districts Suffolk County, New York July 2001 Suffolk County Department of Planning H. Lee Dennison Building - 4th Floor 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788 This publication is on the WEB at: http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/planning Suffolk County Planning Commission Donald Eversoll - At Large CHAIRMAN Robert Martin - Town of Smithtown VICE CHAIRMAN Louis Dietz - Town of Babylon SECRETARY Edward J. Rosavitch - Town of Brookhaven Thomas M. Thorsen - Town of East Hampton Michael J. Macco - Town of Huntington Frank A. Tantone - Town of Islip Richard M. O’Dea - Town of Riverhead George J. Dickerson - Town of Shelter Island David Casciotti - Town of Southampton William Cremers - Town of Southold Laure C. Nolan - Village over 5,000 population Richard London - Village under 5,000 population Ronald Parr - At Large Linda B. Petersen - At Large Suffolk County Department of Planning Thomas A. Isles, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING REPORT PREPARATION Peter K. Lambert RESEARCH DIVISION Roy Fedelem Carol Walsh CARTOGRAPHY DIVISION Suffolk County Department of Planning Hauppauge, New York July 2001 Contents Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................5 DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC TRENDS ..........................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Reconsidering Thornton V. Caldor
    Washington University Law Review Volume 97 Issue 6 The Religion Clauses 2020 Reconsidering Thornton v. Caldor Christopher C. Lund Wayne State University Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the First Amendment Commons, Legal History Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Christopher C. Lund, Reconsidering Thornton v. Caldor, 97 WASH. U. L. REV. 1687 (2020). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol97/iss6/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECONSIDERING THORNTON V. CALDOR CHRISTOPHER C. LUND* [P]eople perceive a religious accommodation case like [Thornton v. Caldor] in many different ways: as a case about government intrusion on employer liberty; as a case about religious observance; as a case about government empowerment of religion; as a case about equalizing employment opportunities; as a case about unequal treatment of religious and non-religious workers. These multiple perspectives explain why people disagree about religious accommodation issues, and may also explain why people often feel some division within themselves. Respondent’s Brief in Thornton v. Caldor1 Thirty-five years ago, the United States Supreme Court decided Estate of Thornton v. Caldor.2 Caldor struck down, on Establishment Clause grounds, a Connecticut statute giving employees the right not to work on their chosen Sabbath.
    [Show full text]
  • Thornton V. Caldor: Will the Supreme Court Put the Squeeze on Lemon;Recent Developments in Public Law Michael D
    Journal of Legislation Volume 12 | Issue 1 Article 7 1-1-1985 Thornton v. Caldor: Will the Supreme Court Put the Squeeze on Lemon;Recent Developments in Public Law Michael D. Woerner Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg Recommended Citation Woerner, Michael D. (1985) "Thornton v. Caldor: Will the Supreme Court Put the Squeeze on Lemon;Recent Developments in Public Law," Journal of Legislation: Vol. 12: Iss. 1, Article 7. Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg/vol12/iss1/7 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Journal of Legislation at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Legislation by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PUBLIC LAW THORNTON V. CALDOR: WILL THE SUPREME COURT PUT THE SQUEEZE ON LEMON? In 1983, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that a state "Sabbath statute" violated the establishment clause of the United States Constitution.' The statute provided that an employee's refusal to work on a day he designates as his Sabbath is not an appropriate ground for his dismissal.2 The employee, Donald Thornton, petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted in March of 1984.' This recent development comment discusses the Connecticut Supreme Court's holding and rationale. It also predicts how the United States Supreme Court will decide the case based on the language and holdings of previous religion clause cases. Finally, it explores the possible ramifications of the predicted Supreme Court holding.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Review 2015 Securing Mobile Life
    Annual Review 2015 Securing mobile life. Creating Confidence. Giesecke & Devrient has been developing security solutions for over 160 years. As the world has advanced, we’ve kept pace. Today, we are a world leader in pioneering technologies that secure how people pay, communicate, and authenticate. Our solutions, products, and services range from innovative hardware and software to end-to-end solutions for EMV, HCE, Wearables, Mobile Wallets and Authentication, NFC and TSM, SIM and Device Management, LTE, Subscription Management and M2M. Get to know us at www.gi-de.com. BLUE CHIP CARD CUSTOMER BASE PERSONALIZATION INCLUDING CAPACITY IN THE U.S. #1 U.S. ISSUER OF TOP 10 200m EMV CARDS U.S. ISSUERS Our Expertise Per Business FINANCIAL MOBILE CITIZEN CONNECTED SERVICES NETWORK ACCESS DEVICE INSTITUTIONS OPERATORS & IDENTITY MAKERS ALL PAYMENT SIM CARDS ACCESS SMART CARDS CARDS PHONES (eSE) PERSONAL- MOBILE IoT/ M2M IZATION MONEY ID CARDS (eUICC) REMOTE DRIVER MOTION MANAGEMENT SECURED TM LICENSE CODE FOR MNOs OBJECTS MOBILE PAYMENT PASSPORT WWW.OBERTHUR.COM ANNUAL REVIEW CONTENTS The Smart Card Alliance Annual Review is produced by the Smart Card Alliance, a not- for-profit, multi-industry association working to stimulate the understanding, adoption, use and widespread application of smart card technology. Publisher Randy Vanderhoof 36 ACCESS CONTROL [email protected] Managing Editor Debra Marshall [email protected] Executive Editor Cathy Medich [email protected] Contributors Willy Dommen, David Helbock, Bryan K. Ichikawa, Jack Jania, Gerald J. Kane, Nicole Lauzon, Oliver Manahan, Debra Marshall, Cathy Medich, Sadiq Mohammed, Morgan Richard, Randy Vanderhoof, Shelbey Votapek Art Design and Production Avisian Main Office Smart Card Alliance 40 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 191 Clarksville Road Princeton Junction, NJ 08550 800.556.6828 www.smartcardalliance.org Membership inquiries or comments? 44 IDENTITY 46 MOBILE AND NFC Please email [email protected] Copyright © 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 Smart Card Alliance, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • An Illustrated History of Waterford Connecticut
    s V, IN- .Definitive, nv U Haying in Waterford began in 1645 when settlers harvested their first West Farms crop. Farming was the town's chief source of livelihood for its first three centuries. Here haying is being done at Lakes Pond (Lake Konomoc) before the reservoir dam changed the lay of the land in 1872. MILESTONES on the Road to the Portal of Waterford's Third Century of Independence . Waterford's town hall opened in 1984 in the former 1918 Jordan School. Youthful scholars had wended their way to three previous schoolhouses at the Rope Ferry Road address. An ornamental balustrade originally graced the roof of the present structure. I 1~-I II An Illustrated History of the Town of NVA T E: R::F. O.-:R, xD By Robert L. Bachman * With William Breadheft, Photographer of the Contem- porary Scenes * Bicentennial Committee, Town of Waterford, Connecticut, 2000. From the First Selectman A complete and accurate history of our past serves as a guiding light to our future. We are fortunate to have had the collective wisdom of the Bicentennial Committee 1995-99 mem- bers and the fine intellect and experience of author Robert L. Bachman to chronicle the essence of our community's past. The citizens of Waterford are indebted to them for their fine work. Thomas A. Sheridan Bicentennial Committee 1995-99 Ferdinando Brucoli Paul B. Eccard, secretary Arthur Hadfield Francis C. Mullins Ann R. Nye Robert M. Nye, chainnan June W. Prentice and Robert L Bachman Adjunct Afem bers Dorothy B. Care Teresa D. Oscarson Acknowledgments -.
    [Show full text]
  • A:\Cadleway2. Wpd.Wpd
    Case 1-04-01371-dem Doc 37 Filed 05/15/06 Entered 05/25/07 12:39:37 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x In re: Case No.: 1-03-26450-dem ISRAEL MICHAEL ROSNER a/k/a MICHAEL ISRAEL ROSNER Chapter 7 Debtor. -------------------------------------------------------x CADLEWAY PROPERTIES, INC., as assignee of MERRILL LYNCH BUSINESS FINANCIAL Adv. Pro. No. 1-04-01371-dem SERVICES INC., Plaintiff, -against- ISRAEL MICHAEL ROSNER a/k/a MICHAEL ISRAEL ROSNER, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------x In re: Case No.: 1-03-26451-dem ERVIN FRIEDMAN Chapter 7 Debtor. -------------------------------------------------------x CADLEWAY PROPERTIES, INC., as assignee of MERRILL LYNCH BUSINESS FINANCIAL Adv. Pro. No. 1-04-01372-dem SERVICES INC., Plaintiff, -against- ERVIN FRIEDMAN Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------x DECISION AND ORDER APPEARANCES: Case 1-04-01371-dem Doc 37 Filed 05/15/06 Entered 05/25/07 12:39:37 Glenn P. Berger, Esq. Jaffe & Asher LLP Attorney for Plaintiff 600 Third Avenue New York, New York 10016 Joseph L. Fox, Esq. Koerner Silverberg & Weiner Attorney for the Defendants 112 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 DENNIS E. MILTON United States Bankruptcy Judge This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Cadleway Properties, Inc. (“Cadleway” or the “plaintiff”) for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 7056 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) denying a discharge to the defendant debtors Israel Michael Rosner (“Rosner”) and Ervin Friedman (“Friedman”)(collectively the “defendants”) under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2), 727(a)(4) and 727(a)(5). Cadleway also seeks dismissal of the defendants’ Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Affirmative Defenses as a matter of law.
    [Show full text]